ArticleBMC cancer2025
Mobile health apps for skin cancer triage in the general population: a qualitative study on healthcare providers' perspectives.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone Applications in Dermatology With Special Focus on AI: A European-Continent-Based Review.International journal of dermatology · 2026Review
- Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Mobile Mental Health Interventions: Qualitative Study of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research in Pediatric Oncology Providers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Advancements in Diagnosis of Neoplastic and Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Old and Emerging Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) integrated with artificial intelligence for skin cancer triage are increasingly available to the general public. Nevertheless, their actual uptake is limited. Although endorsement by healthcare providers (HCPs) is one of the perceived facilitators for using this technology, the perceptions of key HCPs in skin cancer triage towards those apps have not been studied.
objectivesTo explore key HCPs' perceived risks, benefits, and preconditions for endorsement of mHealth apps for skin cancer triage in the general population.
methodsAn in-depth qualitative online focus group (FG) study was conducted consisting of six focus groups: three with dermatologists and three with general practitioners (GPs). Dutch dermatologists and GPs were selected using purposive sampling based on age, knowledge and previous experience with AI. A total of sixteen dermatologists and seventeen GPs attended 90-minute FGs. Data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary team in a thorough thematic content analysis using multiple phases of coding derived from Grounded Theory.
resultsA total of four main risks, three main benefits, and four main preconditions for endorsement were identified. Risks perceived by HCPs concerned incorrect diagnoses, exclusion of subpopulations, and loss of GP autonomy in clinical decision making and diagnostic experience. Perceived benefits were increased skin cancer awareness, facilitation of the early detection of skin cancer, and a streamlined patient journey. Preconditions for endorsement were evidence-based verification of accuracy, integration in clinical practice, clarity about liability in case of adverse events, and accessible and inclusive app design.
conclusionsAlthough HCPs perceive pivotal risks related to the implementation of mHealth apps, they also foresee important benefits when implemented successfully. In order for HCPs to endorse those apps, emphasis must be placed on integrating accurate mHealth apps with accessible and inclusive design and functionality into clinical practice, factors that currently appear to be largely unmet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.